It’s only fitting that director Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” debuted on Easter weekend—because it’s proven to be a cinematic resurrection. Smashing post-pandemic box office records, the film has reignited faith in the power of original storytelling. Yet much of the coverage has focused less on the film’s creative, critical and financial success and more on its profitability ability after three days in theaters and Coogler’s rare deal to get the film made.
The vampire horror film opened to a record-breaking $45.6 million domestically and $63.5 million worldwide its first weekend—making it the highest-grossing original film debut since before the pandemic. In its second weekend, “Sinners” held the No. 1 spot with just a 6 percent drop—an unprecedented feat not seen since Avatar in 2009. Worldwide, the vampire horror film has now made more than $161.6 million
“It’s an absolute phenomenon,” said Paul Dergarabedian, the senior media analyst for Comscore. “There’s no greater barometer of success than a second weekend hold like this.”
Critics love it. Audiences love it, enough to have gone to see it more than once. Social media is abuzz. Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group Co-Chairs say they are “thrilled.” And yet, the overall media narrative of the film has a suspiciously different tone.
Instead of focusing on the fact that “Sinners” is bringing moviegoers back to theaters again (some more than once) amassing the biggest ticket sale draw for an original film since 2019, outlets like Variety and The New York Times almost glossed over this success and instead questioned its profitability just days after release. Variety’s Rebecca Rubin wrote: “Profitability remains a question mark,” citing its $90 million budget—ignoring the fact that few films are expected to recoup production costs in the first weekend.
Huh?
Even actor Ben Stiller called out the slant, tweeting, “In what universe does a $60 million opening for an original studio movie warrant this headline?”
And Patrick Schwarzenegger responded to Variety with: “It’s opening weekend.”
Others called it like they saw it, tweeting, I don’t know “how to explain it, but this post is racist as hell”
Meanwhile, The New York Times added a literal “With A Big Asterisk” to its headline about “Sinners’” success. Ain’t that the most blantant confession of how Black success is too often viewed? With “a big asterisk?”
Compare that to how the NYT covered Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood in 2019, pre-pandemic movie-going era, mind you. That film earned $40.4 million (less than “Sinners”) with the same budget and was heralded as a win—not a single concern about profitability mentioned.
NYT’s Brooks Burns, mentions that the “terrific result” of “Sinners” record sales and begins the very next paragraph with “BUT–” a negation, a dismissal. How many other times has Burns written articles about blockbuster hits and immediately begins with a BUT after mentioning the film’s massive success?
Buried far down after mentioning a “muted success overseas” of $15.4 million in ticket sales and that some unnamed “analysts” say “horror films and stories rooted in Black culture can be hard to sell overseas,” Burns includes that “Sinners” received an A grade in CinemaScore polling, the highest of any horror film in 35 years. BUT Burns is sure to note that the audience was 50 percent Black. Why was this noted here when the racial breakdown of the audience not noted in other similar articles about other box office hits?
The film, which in addition to its Black male director and leading Black male actor, has a predominantly Black cast. Now, while it displays Black culture in the 1930s South, Blackness . is not the sole focus of the plot. So, it’s peculiar that Rubin felt the need to include the racial breakdown of ticket buyers, but did not do the same for any of the other films mentioned in this article or in any of the others she has published on Variety’s site.
Further, if there is a focus on race in these writers’ content, why was there no mention of how the last time an original film brought in more ticket sales than “Sinners” was Jordan Peele’s “Us” in 2019— yet another horror film with a predominantly Black cast, with Black leads from a Black director?
What is omitted and what is included certainly raise eyebrows when compared with previous pieces about other box office hits from white directors with predominantly white casts.
So, why is “Sinners” success being downplayed?
One reason may be the industry-shaking deal Coogler secured. As writer, director and producer whose work garners critical and commercial success, he negotiated rare terms:
- Final cut rights: Coogler would have full control over the final cut of the movie, a right normally reserved for higher-ups
- First-dollar gross: Coogler gets a percentage of the gross income from the first dollar earned at the box office without having to wait for it to be profitable (Now, that one seems like it would be the clincher, but it’s this last one that has most Hollywood studios shaking with fear)
- 25-year ownership: Coogler retains full ownership rights of the film for 25 years after its release
Instead of recognizing these terms as earned, some articles imply he was “given” too much. NYT’s Burns even wrote, “Mr. Coogler would then own it, despite not paying for it”—as if he didn’t earn that ownership through his work.
Instead of recognizing these terms as earned, some headlines imply he was “given” too much. NYT’s Burns even wrote, “Mr. Coogler would then own it, despite not paying for it.” The thing is, here, part of Coogler’s payment for the work he’s done as the writer, director AND producer is this ownership rights deal. The studio is paying him, and he negotiated that this is part of that payment. He did the work, and he earned what he negotiated.
Vulture wrote that Hollywood execs fear Ryan Coogler’s deal could be “the end of the studio system,” as though Coogler was just some average Joe walking in from off the street with his requirements and not someone who has an extraordinary track record of performing on every level when it comes to film.
Coogler’s track record—from “Fruitvale Station” to “Creed” to “Black Panther”—speaks for itself. He delivers commercially and critically. So why the resistance?
Maybe because “Sinners” proves that original stories, including those led by Black talent and not centered only on Blackness, can dominate the box office. And seeing audiences embrace that means Hollywood may follow and begin to make more original stories or even more concerning for those married to the status quo, there may be more Black original storytelling in film and TV. And that threatens an industry still grappling with representation and who it sees as “deserving” of power, parts and profits.
Now, not all coverage has been dismissive. Lindsey Bahr of the Associated Press called “Sinners” “event cinema,” and David Canfield of Vanity Fair said it “already feels like a Hollywood miracle” worthy of Oscar buzz.
Yet others say it might be ignored by the Academy because it debuted “too early” in the year. A convenient excuse—one that historically hasn’t stopped Oscar runs for white-led films.
Audiences are done with a timid Hollywood that serves up remakes and tired storylines year after year. Coogler proves with “Sinners”’ performance that moviegoers crave fresh stories, bold direction and diverse voices. They aren’t a risk, but the regurgitation that makes up a good portion of Hollywood’s major films right now just might be.
